TRONto said:
Sorry, I meant new proposals. There is so much in the pipeline I'd find it hard to believe that a developer would expect a return on a new office space proposal. I also would be surprised if more than one of the existing proposals goes through. Nobody wants space anymore.
Click to expand...

This is from Cushman and Wakefield's Toronto Office Market report Q1 2023:

1683997507959.png

1683997539452.png


Link: file:///D:/Downloads/Toronto_Americas_Marketbeat-Office_Q1-2023.pdf

On the one hand we see very high vacancy; but worth noting here....is that net asking is not materially dropping.

To be clear the market for general-purpose, commercial office space downtown is at 3-decade low but I also wouldn't overplay it; we've been so used to sub 4% in Toronto as the hottest market on the continent that we've forgotten most U.S. cities routinely ran 10-12 % vacancy pre-Covid.

That said, the above conditions are certainly not conducive to major new builds just at the moment.

However, I'm not as glum as @AHK.

First, off, I'm seeing footfall numbers for downtown retail that approaching pre-Covid levels Tues-Thurs.

That suggests we are seeing more people back at the office, as does all the additional rush-hour GO service coming to LSW in a week's time.

I think we're probably at the market's nadir for class-A space, downtown, for the moment, but we shall see.

***

That said, I think you will see contraction of Class B and Class C space downtown, at least some of which will go residential, particularly heritage buildings suited to upmarket, loft-like living.

I also expect to see ongoing contraction in suburban space as well, particularly outside key nodes.

The market near downtown for Life Sciences space, including wet labs remains tight, and I think you will see new builds near U of T/ UHN in that regard; there are some other specialized offices that will also be open for near-term growth.

***

I think we also need to understand that Toronto is adding ~125,000 people per year as a region, which is 625,000 over the next 5 years. That alone is a lot of lawyers, doctors, architects, engineers etc etc. who will need offices of some type.

Doubtless we will some lasting impact from Covid with a greater proportion of WFH; but I don't think it will lead to consequential reductions in Class A, downtown office space in the near term, or abate the need for an increase in the medium term.

Other markets will be hit harder though.
 
Undead said:
NL, are commercial rents per month or annual?
Click to expand...

Annual, unless otherwise stated.

Los Angeles, as a market, for instance tends to post monthly, but most major markets in N.A. read as annual.
 
I don’t see how building more residential in the financial district is being viewed as anything but a win. If anything, it will be necessary to prevent the hollowing out of our downtowns. Remote work is not a fad.

We don’t really need more offices, and we certainly need more purpose built rentals. Build it immediately.
 
Mediocre trash that doesn't fit in with the rest of this beautiful complex. The original phase 3 was so much nicer and complimented the other two towers here.

Hope this gets rejected or cancelled.
 
Build it. It looks fine and there needs to be more purpose-built rental capacity in downtown. Even better that this is in an office-heavy area to provide some additional diversity in uses.

I know this replaces something that would normally be zoned for offices, but between various unbuilt towers such as The Hub, Union Park, Union Centre, CC3, and East Harbour, I don’t think anyone needs to be worried about new potential office space running out anytime soon.
 
Looking at the photo viewing west of the flat iron building and the Canada Trust tower in the photo below. Is going to ruin the iconic look of that photo. Having the highest tower being obscured by this proposal for those who understand a good visual composition. At least the old proposal would of blended in looking the same as the other two towers as seen in the photo up above . And I'm a fan of the punctured windows slab like towers but not here!
 
Last edited:
AHK said:
My perspective - another example of living in a romanticized past in the hope of returning conditions to a state which is just not going to happen.

This is just one of a number of recent proposals for the redevelopment of commercial buildings into mixed use with substantial residential components plus material office replacement components - even when such as this, the entire existing office structure is being demolished.

First, given the pervasive adoption of work from home, already starting pre-Covid supported by technological advances over the recent years - at this point the entire residential component chould be counted as contributing towards the replacement office requirement.

Secondly, the balance in demand, the ratio of office to residential space requirements has changed, and is not likely to go back, fundamentally there has been an increase in residential requirements in ratio to the amount of office space required to support the corresponding population. This is not even taking into account the effect of the ongoing reduction in average household size )i.e. more residential required for the same population.

I suspect that the prospects of the office replacement component being profitable on its own merits for a developer, are marginal or non-existent. That being the case, the office component is in fact being materially subsidized by the residential portion of the building. The result will be a very counter productive increase in the development costs for the residential units.

In other words, this is a losing situation in two ways - first of all (although not necessarily in this case as the proposed office space would be offsite) the approved density could be used for additional residential units, helping the housing situation, and secondly, the incremental costs loaded onto the residential units to support the replacement office component further hurt affordability.

So given the current market situation, over availability of office space in Toronto, combined with a housing shortage - it would seem to make sense to me that Council, the City's Planning department and developers back off from requiring workplace replacement components within new primarily residential buildings being proposed for existing commercial building locations.
Click to expand...
Not to mention this proposal helps towards solving the issue that's existed even before 2020 where the financial district emptied out outside of business hours and days. By having more mixed-use buildings in the Financial district, it would make it more lively (Thus benefitting the many shops and restaurants that are there outside of business hours) and also make it more convenient for those who work in the district. You'd have people not just working there 9-5 on Monday-Friday, but also living there on a day-to-day basis (Giving the district more of a feel akin to the Entertainment district where there's lots of people out and about at all hours of the day and night, even if it's a bit).

To those saying it's a cash grab, a cash grab doesn't necessarily mean it's automatically bad for the community. The developer (And thus the hundreds of people who design, construct, and maintain the building also do) makes money, more homes are added, nearby businesses benefit, and commutes to the Financial district are shortened for some. Not to mention that it shouldn't really add too much to congestion as the area is extremely well served by transit (Walking distance to Canada's largest transit station = Access to a subway line, several intercity commuter lines from GO Transit, VIA rail lines to other cities, express train to the airport, and a very large bus terminal), and is close to empty outside of business hours so there's a lot of space for people to come out then.
 
While residential towers are going up just about everywhere in the downtown core, the financial district has largely been left out of the boom...more people living in the financial district can only be a good thing IMO. Moreover, words utterly fail me to describe how satisfying it will feel to look up at the Gowans Kent Building and never again have to see that hideous 1980s rooftop addition. The overall treatment of the heritage component, including the modifications to the west and east walls, will only be a positive. As for the tower component, sure, it could be more imaginative(though its conservative, understated treatment is in keeping with the financial district), but I do like the stepped-back profile and there doesn't seem to be a sheet of spandrel or a balcony in sight! All in all, I believe that this is going to be a significant improvement to the stretch of Front between Yonge and York.
 
Last edited:
Man, looking at that pic of Brookfield Place phase 3 really takes me back to the early days of this site and emporis (skyscrapers.com) lol.
Super weird seeing another proposal at this location.
 
The heritage portion of the design is much better than what we currently have. The tower however, needs to be redesigned, smaller floor plate and at least 40-50 metres shorter to preserve the vista from the Gooderham building. At its current design it doesn’t compliment the complex and it ruins the skyline view. I love that it is residential, but something like this would be respectful and acceptable:
9BE5DA11-5DA4-4C23-A144-A1840AAD17AF.jpeg
 
urbantoronto.ca

53-Storey Infill Rental Tower Proposed at Brookfield Place | UrbanToronto

The Financial District’s Brookfield Place may finally be getting its long-awaited third phase — but not in the way that many would have expected. An application has now been submitted by Brookfield Residential, contemplating the addition of a 53-storey residential tower to the southern edge of...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top